The absence of any explanation is statutorily considered as amounting to concealment of income. In the absence of any explanation regarding the receipt of the money, which is in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee, an adverse inference is sought to be drawn against the assessee under the first part of clause (A) of the said Explanation.
In case of transfer of capital asset forming part of block of assets in respect of which depreciation has been allowed, mode of computation and cost of acquisition shall be as per modifications provided in section 50. Thus, special provision made for computation of capital assets in respect of which depreciation has been allowed, is confined for the purpose of section 50 in relation to sections 48 and 49 only.
Section 115JB, in fact, in no way either denies the benefit given under Section 80-IB or reduces the same. While the appellant-assessee can claim the benefit under Section 80-IB of the Act and it is not denied per se to the appellant-assessee, in the given case, the provisions of Section 115JB may be attracted or may not be attracted depending upon the nature or legal composition of the assessee.
We are of the view that there should be a meaningful consideration which should be reflected on the note sheets in order to comply with the requirement of Section 35(2) of the Act. In this case, the file does not show any such satisfaction or opinion having been recorded by the Committee of Commissioners. On this ground itself this appeals fails and is accordingly dismissed.
The first assessment order was passed on 1.3.2006. There was a revision of assessment under section 263. Therefore, a fresh assessment order came to be passed on 29.12.2008. However, the order passed in revision was the subject matter before the Tribunal which set aside the order in revision by an order dated 26.6.2009.
Assessing Officer of the contractors have furnished certificate under Section 197 of the Act to the Principal Officer of the Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. Such certificate is in terms of clause (iii) of Section 204 of the Act. Such certificate mandates the persons to whom such certificate is issued to deduct tax at a rate lower than the prescribed rate under Section 194C of the Act. Merely because the assessee has got separate TAN for Bahadurgarh unit and for Mumbai unit, will not render the certificate issued under Section 197(2) as redundant. Such certificate is to be issued to the Principal Officer of the Company as the person responsible for deduction of tax and not to any other person or unit of the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Rohtak and affirmed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality in any manner.
Detention of the assets has been provided and permitted only so long as there is some outstanding demand of tax and penalty against an assessee or expected liability of such tax or penalty; obviously to safeguard the interest of Revenue for the realization or recovery of such demand of tax, interest and penalty.
The assessee is engaged in building activities. It argues that flats are held as part of its inventory of stock-in-trade, and are not let out. The further argument is that unlike in the other instances, where such builders let out flats, here there is no letting out and that deemed income – which is the basis for assessment under the ALV method, should not be attributed. The argument, though attractive cannot be accepted.
CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT had the benefit of examining the entire documentary evidence which consisted of the various lease deeds and the c & f agents agreements. The conclusions drawn by these authorities on the basis of such scrutiny are concurrent. Even otherwise, if the revenue was of the opinion that any consideration paid to the c & f agent comprised of some elements such as rent, such a conclusion ought to have been supported by facts.
As far as instant assessment is concerned, it is a case of individual assessment. The extent of the property sought to be assessed at the hands of HUF was to the extent of 20.88 acres at Alamarathupatti Village. Even though the assessee claimed the property in entirety as HUF property, the partition deed allotted an extent of 4.63 acres alone.
